wow…coldn’t pass this one up. Came across this via this post:

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?”

Raskin replied: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

The room erupted into applause.

Quote of the Year indeed…if this were a Guinness commercial this would be the point at which they’d say “BRILLIANT!”

Tagged with:
 
  • A great quote indeed. Good for the prof.

  • That’s one of the best quotes I’ve heard all year.

  • Eric

    Yep, instant classic. Hopefully it will be used again. What perfect timing. I wonder if he had this worked out and was just waiting for someone to fall into the trap?

  • NAB4SE

    Raskin was my con law professor at AU…absolute genius…he’s running for state senate in MD this year.

  • While Raskin’s barb is amusing and well-taken, it exposes an even deeper fault-line in the supposed wall between church and state in this country. Why do we continue to permit and encourage witnesses (along with government officials, both appointed and elected) to swear an oath on the Bible? What kind of wall is it that affirms the most important instrument of our democracy by reference to the most important instrument of the religious majority of this country?

    As an atheist the witness oath is of particular concern to me. Were I ever to take the witness stand, I would, of course, choose a non-secular affirmation rather than one of the religious “so help me God” variety. But I would worry very seriously, especially if I were in the unfortunate role of testifying defendant, that my failure to swear an oath to God would prejudice my testimony in the eyes of some jury members. These days our law is supposed to be blind to the religious beliefs of those that come before it. Which begs the question of why we allow, as their first act to the court, witnesses to either affirm not only that they will speak truthfully but also that they subscribe to a fundamentally religious point of view?

    http://farragonews.blogspot.com/2006/03/did-you-hear-one-about-bible-and.html

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!